Blog Post #23

On NPR, when Nina Totenberg was interviewing some people for her discussion “What is she Wearing?” one man said that style has always been a powerful political weapon. A persons clothing generally says a great deal about their identity, personality, and self-confidence. Women in the world of politics and law need to portray themselves in a certain light, generally one that shows them as competent but yet not aggressive or threatening. Many times women who come of as threatening are disliked by their colleagues. When women first started to enter the field men all wore identical suits and women tried to look like the men in order to blend in, in order to avoid resentment and to be taken seriously. There is an old stereotype that an attractive woman is thought to be incompetent. Back then, from 1960-1980, dressing like the men put women in a double bind. If a woman dressed in a manly manner then she was thought to be non-feminine and not being themselves. But if a woman dressed feminine they were not considered to be serious. Most women in the field felt that they were stripped of their personal identities. In the 1990s women start to drop the faux-male suit look. It started to become more important that they appear to be attractive and confident in their skills. They were rewarded for being more self-confident with greater power and control. This started to resolve that contradiction between femininity and competence. They started to have the self-assurance to dress they way they wanted and let their abilities speak for themselves. Social science research says that attractive people tend to be more persuasive than unattractive people. This change is women’s professional wardrobe also brought a casual dress movement. This lessened the differences between men and women because men too are now plagued by what to wear for what occasion. Both genders had to learn to base their outfits on the client, the setting and the location. Many women felt that the casual dress confused the hierarchy between the lawyers and staff, and female attorneys were more likely to be mistaken for a secretary. Some people felt that a professional look makes attorneys appear to be more confident and controlled.

Unfortunately, women are still judged highly on what they look like. One woman that Holly English spoke with said she actually thought she won some cases because they jury liked her appearance more than her opponents. Another woman pointed out that, more often than not, women are not credible until they prove they are. Whereas men, are credible until they prove they are not credible. Now, women have to attempt to dress feminine while making sure they are not too sexy or too boring. A woman the English spoke with for her book, Gender on Trial, said that her goal is always to not look too bland, or too flashy, jus neat and well put together so that the case will take center stage rather than her outfit. A good example of a woman who dresses more feminine while making sure she is fun without being too sexy is the first lady, Michelle Obama. She steers away from the traditional Washington DC look but still makes sure she looks like a woman of power. She has made herself appear charismatic and relatable to the public through her wardrobe. She has the ability to reflect society’s fears about women, power, gender, and race.